US military, technology, arms, tactics

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 06 Feb 2016 05:00

Marines are the master of "make do" regardless. they did it with the problem plagued V-22 Osprey and they will do it with the J-35.

When they band together and make a decision, then that is it. No further dissension from within the ranks. They are tight.

....don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it is for the best because obviously lives are sometimes sacrificed under this type of discipline. but that is the way they work.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Feb 2016 17:29

SM-6 Testing Displays Missile’s Range, Versatility

PACIFIC MISSILE RANGE FACILITY, Hawaii — The Navy successfully executed four flight tests of the surface-to-air STANDARD Missile-6 Block I (SM-6 Blk I) off the Hawaiian coast between Jan. 11 and 22, Naval Sea Systems Command announced in a Feb. 4 release.

These tests, designated Alpha, Bravo, Delta and Golf, are part of the SM-6 Blk I Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation (FOT&E) events planned to assess missile performance.

“These flight tests, once again, demonstrate the versatility and capability that the SM-6 provides for our Navy’s fleet defense,” said Capt. Michael Ladner, program executive office for Integrated Warfare Systems’ (PEO IWS) major program manager for Surface Ship Weapons. “I’m extremely proud of our Standard Missile team for their hard work and efforts in achieving four more successful SM-6 missions. These tests mark the longest downrange and cross-range engagements of the SM-6 to date.”

The SM-6 provides an over-the-horizon engagement capability when launched from an Aegis warship and uses the latest in hardware and software missile technology to provide needed capabilities against evolving air threats.

Flight test Alpha was the longest downrange, and flight test Bravo was the longest cross-range intercepts with an SM-6 to date. Along with flight tests Alpha and Bravo, flight test Delta successfully intercepted two targets with simultaneous engagements, and flight test Golf successfully intercepted a target with electronic countermeasures.

“I consider these tests a major milestone and a confirmation of how far the team has come since this program first started,” said Kirk Johnson, PEO IWS Surface Ship Missiles principal assistant program manager. “These program accomplishments are a testament to many years of hard work and dedication of the entire Standard Missile team.”

The SM-6 is the sixth fielded variant of the Standard Missile family. The SM-6 program has completed development and achieved Initial Operational Capability in November 2013. It is currently in the FOT&E phase, with a projected Full Operational Capability declaration date during the first quarter of fiscal 2018.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Feb 2016 05:39

Exclusive: Pentagon's budget plan funds 404 Lockheed F-35 jets - sources

The U.S. Defense Department plans to buy 404 Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jets over the next five years, a net decrease of 5 to 7 percent from last year's plan, sources familiar with the plans said on Friday.

The orders will amount to about $40 billion in new revenue for Lockheed, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier, and engine maker Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N).

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 09 Feb 2016 02:30

4 Shri Brarji, as featured in "Independence Day".

the sixth-gem fighter will be long range because it won't have many bases to operate from overseas; it must 'carry a lot of weapons;' survivability will be key.

What do those requirements and physics lead you to?

'This looks a lot like a baby B-2 and this is really getting into our sweet spot,'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z3zcHiTwrZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Apparently it uses "Artificial Intelligence". Pentagon and Bottom-Foggy sources said they are trying to figure out what that means.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Feb 2016 06:41

I post this here because it is as much about bombing strategies as about the US election
Air Force general says carpet bombing ISIS would not be effective

An Air Force general on Thursday said "carpet-bombing" the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) — as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has called for — would not be effective.

"Daesh doesn't actually mass itself where you could actually even use that kind of tactic, and that's a tactic that is really not effective for the fight we're actually executing today," said Lt. Gen. Charles Q. Brown, Jr. commander of U.S. Air Forces Central Command, told reporters at a briefing, using an alternative name for the terrorist group.

Cruz, who is running for president, has repeatedly defended his call to "carpet-bomb" ISIS, saying during a presidential debate last month that it is not simply "tough talk" but a different strategy from the Obama administration.

Brown said ISIS fighters have been putting themselves in areas where there are large populations.

He said there are places in the open desert where they are in the open, but they don't mass.

Brown added that it was also unnecessary.

"We can drop one or two munitions in an area and actually do the job well without having to do carpet-bombing," he said.

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 26 Feb 2016 17:49

http://defenseelectronicsmag.com/system ... dcf1167955

Changes are coming for companies that work with defense and aerospace customers. Wide-ranging initiatives put in place by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) are fueling those changes. These initiatives are intended to ensure that the different branches of the military are equipped with the latest high-frequency technologies—but also to maintain competitive bidding among contractors and suppliers and to eliminate the custom “one-off” systems of the past, while generally achieve more of a shrinking defense budget.

This is not the first time DoD has thrown down the gauntlet to industry. But unlike previous efforts—such as the attempt to incorporate more commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware in defense systems, which have been limited—these new efforts carry great weight. They will likely remain in place regardless of who is President, which political party controls Congress, or the size of the defense budget.

---------meanwhile our govt is giving our PVT. industry some bubble gum to eat..

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Feb 2016 19:42

US Air Force Unveils New B-21 Bomber

http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaki ... /80976160/

While there are no existing prototypes of the aircraft, the artist rendering unveiled Feb. 26 is based on the initial design concept, according to an Air Force statement. The Air Force settled on the B-21 designation as recognition that LRS-B is the first bomber of the 21st century, the statement noted.

James also explained in the statement why the B-21 shares a resemblance to the B-2, also built by Northrop.

“The B-21 has been designed from the beginning based on a set of requirements that allows the use of existing and mature technology,” James said, according to the statement.

Northrop Grumman spokesman Tim Paynter stressed the B-21 bomber's importance to the nation's future in a statement emailed to reporters following James' remarks.

“Northrop Grumman is proud to serve as the prime contractor for the B-21 Bomber, in partnership with the U.S. Air Force, to deliver a capability that is vital to our national security," Paynter said. “Any further questions should be directed to the Air Force.”

The Air Force awarded the contract for B-21 engineering, manufacturing and development to Northrop on Oct. 27. The service plans to field the new bomber in the mid-2020s.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Feb 2016 20:22

externally nothing radical. looks like a B2-block60

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Feb 2016 05:41

Major diffs. The intakes in the B-2 are by themselves, the B-21 has them integrated. The rear of the B-21 is much cleaner, no saw toothed design and not clear about the exhaust.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Feb 2016 05:49

all such changes are pretty std in any stealth UCAV already in FOC .... so they are right when saying its based on proven tech, not a greenfield thing like the original B2 or F22.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Mar 2016 04:32

The revolution is not happening in OML (with regards to survivability) unless someone is willing to pump in billions to go fast. The transformation is happening in materials and the stuff that goes inside - That is where survivability and combat effectiveness is going to come from..I would wager that the extremely large amount of money spent on upgrading the Defensive suite on the B-2 pays for a lot of the conceptual work on something similar for the B-21. There is a lot you can do with aerodynamics, speed, altitude, range/payload etc and there is a lot more you know with stealth and survivability than you did during the B-2 development cycle. The B-21 is smartly a collection of all those lessons learnt and that seems to be driving the trades made in the program post 2010. Similarly there is a lot you know about completely open and technology agnostic missions systems that allow you to add layers of capability over 5-6 decades of operation that you simply cannot do at an acceptable cost with the B-1, B-2 or even the B-52.

You can in today's time with the right experience, right access to technology and proper program management make something that looks like (shape) the B-2 be many times more survivable and much more effective in penetrating air-defenses and accomplishing mission objectives. I believe it is this ability of Northrop that finally sealed the deal for their submission. They are the only entity that has not only demonstrated an operational flying wing stealth bomber 25 years ago, but have also showcased some of the most cutting edge technologies in Electronic warfare, and last decade beat out Boeing and Lockheed to successfully demonstrate embedded antennas and apertures successfully to the USAF (not mounting arrays into the wing or body like a lot of aircraft but structurally integrating bendable arrays into aerodynamic surfaces). Most other primes would have had to work with integrated prime teams while Northrop can do this in house.

Singha wrote:all such changes are pretty std in any stealth UCAV already in FOC .... so they are right when saying its based on proven tech, not a greenfield thing like the original B2 or F22.

Having a small-medium sized UAV that is only a stealth representative design land on a carrier or re-fuel in the air is a lot different from getting a mid-large sized bomber that would have many times the payload, many times the range, and many times the survivability requirements..The B-21 will also conduct offensive EW/Cyber missions, and will have to also take over at some point the strategic mission from the B-2. All in, a sizable challenge when giving the conflicting requirements. It must for example perform Cybler, EW and other offensive missions without giving itself up which means breakthrough in embedded antennas and next generation of data links..Same thing with signature especially given its long life. Definitely not as easy as simply asking them to build a bomber sized X-47. Like I mentioned earlier, the magic would be internally and in integration..The words coming out of the CSAF were extremely wideband stealth, and even wideband offensive and defensive EW/EA and network penetration capability. This is like taking an EC-130/EA18 and asking them to make it like a sensor craft. Not easy!.

B-21 is a B-1/B-52 replacement designed around the Pacific. They will emphasize cost to get a good amount of them. If the mission system goals are met they can keep on making these for a long time and blend the next generation fighter technology into it. This does not replace the B-2..

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Mar 2016 05:07

Pratt & Whitney, BAE Among Major B-21 Contractors

No major surprises there..Its nearly impossible to work on a major project without BAE Electronic systems (Ex Lockheed Electronic Systems), and the rest are fairly predictable. One major surprise was that none of the other two primes/subs (Boeing or Lockheed) have been roped in..I guess its more reflective of Northrop's current portfolio than anything else.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Mar 2016 05:35

Anti-Aircraft Missile Sinks Ship: Navy SM-6

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 08 Mar 2016 07:38

brar_w wrote:Anti-Aircraft Missile Sinks Ship: Navy SM-6

a new era in the missile tech ..In future most missiles act as a Anti ship/surface and anti air missile

John · Post by **John** » 08 Mar 2016 08:23

SajeevJino wrote:
brar_w wrote:Anti-Aircraft Missile Sinks Ship: Navy SM-6
a new era in the missile tech ..In future most missiles act as a Anti ship/surface and anti air missile

Not really anything new SA-N-1 had this capability, in fact the feature is missing in modern SAM in effort to reduce the size and simplify the design. And also modern SAM are far too effective in intercepting a missile in ballistic flight profile.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Mar 2016 08:59

I thought ESSM already does anti ship.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Mar 2016 15:11

Singha wrote:I thought ESSM already does anti ship.

Not sure about the ESSM, but these are two very different weapons..The SM6 is huge, with lots of range in a ballistic profile.

SajeevJino wrote:
brar_w wrote:Anti-Aircraft Missile Sinks Ship: Navy SM-6
a new era in the missile tech ..In future most missiles act as a Anti ship/surface and anti air missile

The SM6's predecessors (SM1 and SM2) already had this capability, so in effect they are essentially getting it back to the fleet with the SM6. Its obviously not a substitute for a Harpoon or a LRASM, but it does tell the enemy surface combatant that each and every VLS cell can potentially have an anti surface weapon in it since they are upgrading the Tomahawk as well for this role. When you factor in the VLS capacity, it gives you plenty to think about in terms of how to defend your ship, since you will get all sorts of missiles..from long range ballistic profiles using the SM6, to long range cruise missiles and shorter ranged faster weapons..Its all about saturation here, and the 'threat' of saturation would have to drive design trade-offs in Chinese ships going forward. The thing with anti-ship missiles is that, even if you can fend them off, you still need to carry defensive missiles to do so..and this is where an adversaries load out can drastically alter your own offensive capability by forcing design trades for self-defense.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 09 Mar 2016 13:06

The thing with anti-ship missiles is that, even if you can fend them off, you still need to carry defensive missiles to do so..and this is where an adversaries load out can drastically alter your own offensive capability by forcing design trades for self-defense.

yes, that is the reason why I think the US Navy will go with a layered in depth offense/defense strategy. That is to say fast attack submarines out front with the small boys, backed further out by Aegis class destroyers and behind them, the carrier task force. they will cover a huge amount of ocean by necessity due to the opponent's BM's.

behind all that will be the anti-sat forces and the air force strategic bombers, not to be forgotten are the Marines' air wing stationed at remote hell holes through out the Pacific.

the problem with all this is three fold:

1, first strike capability against at least one of the US Navy's carrier task force that always seems to be cruising in harm's way out front. too bad for those guys.

2. bases near the opponent are are going to get plastered. the Air force base in Korea at Pusan, Navy base at Iwakuni Japan and the various Marine and Navy bases on Okinawa and uS air force base on Guam.

3. small boys have no serious defensive/offensive capability missiles. at present, write them off.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Mar 2016 19:11

ANALYSIS: America's hypersonic missile revolution beckons

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Mar 2016 21:15

ANALYSIS: America's hypersonic missile revolution beckons

But I couldn't find any analysis

..CSBA is working on an actual analysis that should be out soon, but there are plenty of really good papers on the subject when it comes to tactics, operational advantages (and disadvantages as well) of investing and deploying these systems. The next few months will provide a bunch of analysis as think thanks drive policy suggestions for the next US President's cabinet, congress etc. Hypersonics, Troop strength, Nuclear modernization etc all will be amp'd up over the next few months..

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 10 Mar 2016 09:49

.

Well if the SM series works as a dual role .. Then it's crazy American, Japanese, South Korean ships has damn big destructive fire power. 100+ missiles for Anti Ship/ Anti surface warfare

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 10 Mar 2016 15:06

Not the SM series, just the SM6 going forward with SM2's as well (but ships would have one or the other and most likely not both). The SM3 would still be an exclusively mid-course system. However with VLS capacity expected to rise, and the committal to get either (or both) a LRASM or LRASM-like long range system into the VLS, and/or upgrading the Tomahawk for anti-ship duties (dual land and sea attack roles - modes already in testing) one can easily see the increase in offensive capability that comes with that. Only the shorter range systems, and the SM3's would not be capable of anti-ship duties, the rest will all be fully capable of saturating an enemy ship.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 10 Mar 2016 23:02

China knows that the US can shut them off from the Pacific and strike them 800 to 900 miles inland in a conventional war, even after losing a carrier task force initially. Thus their push to expand the "silk road" railway system.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 11 Mar 2016 05:06

AAA THE F-35 IS A LEMON PIERRE SPREY (RUNAWAY FIGHTER) FIFTH ESTATE EXTENDED INTERVW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Mar 2016 05:38

There is a thread on the F-35 where it has been posted multiple times. And the same Sprey wants Russia to keep on producing Flankers so that the F-16 can remain as the best fighter in the sky

. Spray also stopped correcting the media (he's mostly on RT these days) when they say he's the man who designed the F16 when all he did was do analysis for the USAF in support of the LWF and has absolutely zilch experience in designing anything that flies.

Here's something if you wish to read a lengthy article..

http://www.fredoneverything.net/ReformersLast.shtml

But with all due respect, his audience is the hipster crowd that samples his music (Which Kanye West apparently did) and they go ga ga reading his articles..RT grabs, Sputnik prints it and those that actually sit and make decisions, ignore it.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 11 Mar 2016 20:33

The F-35 thread is locked, so posted this here for posterity.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Mar 2016 23:38

Designed the F-16!! Yeah.

He designed a brick that could not even take off. Grady Booch and group saved his butt. Wonder if he even knows what FbW is.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Mar 2016 23:43

brar_w wrote:There is a thread on the F-35 where it has been posted multiple times.

Over 10 times from what I recall.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Mar 2016 23:50

NRao wrote:Designed the F-16!! Yeah.

He designed a brick that could not even take off. Grady Booch and group saved his butt. Wonder if he even knows what FbW is.

His role on the LWF program is well known. There are members of the F-16 design team that worked endless hours to not only design it but to overcome some of the challenges that would take serious objection to him not clarifying that he didn't design the aircraft. One of them even occasionally posts on f16.net. Again, if one were to take him seriously, then one would have to also take all the other garbage he claims seriously. So PAKFA, Typhoon, Raptor, F-35, Flanker are all Junk. He has long lost respect in the strategic circles, and even technical ones and the US defense reporters would generally not go to him (Those that look at hit jobs most certainly do) and interestingly outlets like RT rarely ask him for wisdom on Russian aircraft which he obviously claims much inferior to the F-16, just like the F-22 is.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Mar 2016 21:10

brar_w wrote:
NRao wrote:Designed the F-16!! Yeah.

He designed a brick that could not even take off. Grady Booch and group saved his butt. Wonder if he even knows what FbW is.
His role on the LWF program is well known. There are members of the F-16 design team that worked endless hours to not only design it but to overcome some of the challenges that would take serious objection to him not clarifying that he didn't design the aircraft. One of them even occasionally posts on f16.net. Again, if one were to take him seriously, then one would have to also take all the other garbage he claims seriously. So PAKFA, Typhoon, Raptor, F-35, Flanker are all Junk. He has long lost respect in the strategic circles, and even technical ones and the US defense reporters would generally not go to him (Those that look at hit jobs most certainly do) and interestingly outlets like RT rarely ask him for wisdom on Russian aircraft which he obviously claims much inferior to the F-16, just like the F-22 is.

We are not on the same page (as usual).

My post does not refer to his role on the LWF effort. It highlights that there were others that contributed immensely to the program - IMHO, without which they would not have a F-16. When people on F16.net talk about the Three Amigos and since we are into acronyms, LSS -> UML -> RR -> IBM let me know. Their contribution to CD and tangentially to ML is rather huge and very sadly unrecognized inside aerospace.

The LWF effort, I am sure, has had some impact on even projects like the AMCA. But the contribution of the Three Amigos is even larger.

__________________________________

Others:

* check out MiG-33 (also Project 33)
* and here is Boeing 908-909 contribution to the LWF (1960s). Seems familiar?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Mar 2016 00:54

@Nrao the point still remains that it is extremely diengenous for him to be called the designer of the F-16. He did not design it period. While he did contribute to the LWF effort, it in no way qualifies him to be credited with the design of the F-16. His role was that of an analyst supporting others while he is often quoted as an authority on fighter aircraft design, performance requirements and capability. This is extremely important, because if his claims are to be taken seriously EACH AND EVERY single design house in the world, and each and every air-force around the world that is writing requirements leading to these designs is 'getting it wrong'.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Mar 2016 03:45

I agree, but (nothing personal against the man) IMHO you are being too kind.

And if he has reappeared on RT, then, it explains it all. A natural harbor for such a person.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2016 06:50

Gagan wrote:AAA THE F-35 IS A LEMON PIERRE SPREY (RUNAWAY FIGHTER) FIFTH ESTATE EXTENDED INTERVW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

What I find really fascinating about this video is that it is so much like the "LCA=Late Combat Aircraft" debate.

Actually if one ignores the scathing criticism he makes of the F-35 and just listen to the "general military aviation" comments he makes it gets difficult to knock them down even if they are strawman arguments

1. He says a fat body and small wings makes a plane useless at manoeuvring and quotes a high wing loading as a drawback
2. He says that for close air support there needs to be an ability to loiter and turn over small areas and a good gun
3. For long range interdiction the bomb load needs to be good
4. He says stealth precludes a heavy bomb load and stealth itself is overrated
5. He says extreme complexity is a formula for repeated failures, high cost and constant delays
6. He says that trying to make a single design suit every role for everyone never suit every one

But, like the LCA
1. It is too late to cancel the F-35
2. The US and other nations will have to "somehow manage" and make it work

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 13 Mar 2016 07:15

the f-35 will have a wide range of weapons to select from and offers a tiny RCS for any mission.

it may not be the best dog fighter in the world but as a Norwegian test pilot has written, no other plane offers its suite of mission capabilities and STILL has some dog fighting capabilities like the f-35.

I would also point out that if the f-35 needed it, it could hang all sorts of crap beneath its wings like all the other planes.

but why do that?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Mar 2016 17:05

What people often forget is that in a post-cold war downsized USAF, the F-35 needed to be as good as an F-16 in CAS even though it replaces, in the numerical sense retiring A-10's down the road. Similar things have happened in SEAD assets with the USAF no longer desiring Wild Weasel specific aircraft, letting the existing F-16's take care of that and offloading some of that mission to the USN under a joint memorandum. The USAF does not have the funds or the resources to build a cold war air-force with multiple types specializing in different missions like the A-10. Sprey knows this but wouldnt bring it up because it does not fit his agenda. If the F-35 was never envisioned the A10 would have been replaced by a higher block version of the F-16. With time the metrics determining fighter aircraft designs change and we have seen this over many generation of air-combat and weapons system design. With finite dollars and conflicting requirements your priorities change over time - the goal being to field the most combat effective weapons system given the resources. That would look lot different when you design something in the 70's, vs when you design something in the late 90's and early 2000's. Sprey has used similar arguments in claiming the F-22 is an inferior aircraft to the F-16 and if one were to only read his arguments and nothing else (there is plenty out there to rebut his garbage if one were inclined to go looking for it) one could perhaps be fooled by it.

How combat aircraft requirements have changed over time has been a much studied topic in the academia and plenty of good technical papers have been shared in the old thread that speak to this. Simply put, if you go by a 1960's or 70's rationale like Sprey does even the F-22 does not match up to the F-16 and Sprey has claimed this over and over again back in the day to attack the F-22. He is stuck in his bubble and still maintains that the radar is useless waste in a fighter aircraft. And again, the Flanker is inferior tot he F-16 and he has plenty of technical reasons for these beleifs.

The C.A.B. Show - F-35 Lightning II vs. Pierre Sprey... Who's the REAL Turkey?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Mar 2016 17:39

shiv wrote: He says a fat body and small wings makes a plane useless at manoeuvring and quotes a high wing loading as a drawback

He is fixated on the metrics that were paramount during his time, but doesn't care to mention that in modern times you have to factor in body lift as well..Its just not the wing doing all the work these days..

He says that for close air support there needs to be an ability to loiter and turn over small areas and a good gun

The problem here is that one cannot generalize Close Air Support as being one monolithic mission set but a collection of missions performed by various platforms. If I were to support troops in Afghanistan, when the heaviest weapon the opponent has is an RPG then by all means I'd prefer the A-10 with a gun. However, if one were to go up against a better equipped opponent that can deny me low altitude I would quickly begin to support the troops using PGM's, smaller and more accurate ones given the mission requirements (separation). Hence we have seen over the years the A-10 upgrades focused at that. When it comes to permissive environments like Afghanistan, a big gun A-10 with its titanium bathtub is perhaps an overkill..I can do the same mission with a gun mounted on a Scorpion using its significantly greater loiter time to my advantage.

Secondly, CAS is just not about Loiter time..but at times, also about getting to the battlefield quickly so as to provide support as and when needed. Here a supersonic platform helps immensely and if one were to look at USAF CAS in Iraq, there were times when the F-16's were called in because the A-10 could not go supersonic.

Finally, modern CAS is about survivability..that is being in a denied at worst, or contested at best air-space and being able to provide timely support. Here no one platform will be KING as was the case in an Afghanistan like scenario where the A-10 shines hands down. In a more contested scenario, you'll have multiple platforms some that have a huge magazine depth (such as a bomber), some that have huge loiter time (like a predator/reaper) and some that are survivable, and have the discriminating sensors to discern what is going on 20-25K below since the enemy is likely to deny them lower altitudes.

Operators and those in charge of requirements do not live in a 1960's bubble..In modern times, you can design a UAV that can loiter for > 18 hours, a bomber that can penetrate air-defenses and has the sensors and magazine depth to simultaneously attack dozens of targets, a pipeline that now has redundancy built into it considerably shortening the time it takes to call in an accurate strike by the troops on the ground (Look at DARPA efforts underway to make this even better). Now you have a single fighter in the F-35A, that has stealth, and all the embedded sensors to without out changing the configuration perform EA/EW, SEAD, CAS, A2A and A2G missions and network along with other platforms. CAS as a mission has to factor in all this and leverage these capabilities that are available now and on the horizon. They can't just ignore all this since they don't sit in a music studio and romanticize over some analysis that was done in the late 60's or early 70's. The USAF is not a 150+ fighter squadron air-force, nor are they primarily European centric where they have to forward deploy to fight against a Soviet Union or Warsaw pact opponents. The argument that the USAF needs to re-evaluate the fighter:Bomber is actually quite valid..If I were to predict, I'd predict that the next generation of US designs will see the lines between bombers and fighters being less clearer with significant capability overlap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weRz7bbIdfo

For long range interdiction the bomb load needs to be good

Yes, for a fighter. But the range/payload requirements for the F-35 have been written with the F-16 and F-15 usage in mind. The F-35 goes farther with a heavier load than the F-16 can since it blocks its weapons stations with fuel load given its very small internal fuel load capability. For contested environments, the load has been 2 very large bombs or multiple smaller weapons for strike missions with self-defense weapons also carried internally. For routine missions in an air-defense surpassed scenario, you can load the F-35 out with a significantly larger payload than the F-16 given the range requirements...In a contested environment, the F-35's load resembles the capability the USAF lost with the retiring of the F-117 (but the F35 also carries self defense weapons and sensors, and more fuel) and in a degraded environment the F-35 carries a load similar to the F-15E than an F-16 it replaces.

The picture above shows potentially, 4 Bombs (with the largest being 2000 lb), 4 missiles, and 9000 kg of fuel plus a targeting pod and a gun pod that can house a future sensor like a WAS, EW or a LIDAR pod in the future (Its been designed to do so). It can of course carry more but one must remember this is a single engine medium sized fighter that primarily replaces classic F/A-18 hornets and much smaller F-16's. Neither of these aircraft can carry as much fuel and payload under routine circumstances. The F-35 has been designed to beat the F-16 and F-18 range/payload charts and for good reasons - The requirement shave changed over the last 30-40 years.

Read this very interesting thread of requirements comparison when comparing F-35 with the aircraft it is intended to replace :

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php ... 5&start=15

He says stealth precludes a heavy bomb load and stealth itself is overrated

That would only be the case had the designers and those setting the requirements did not want or allow for external stores as was the case with the F117 (or so they say). In case of the F-35, if they were to penetrate a contested air-defense network the load would be 2 x 2000 lb bombs, or 8 SDB's or multiple long range stand-off missiles/weapons. Want a larger penetrating payload? There is the LRS-B for that but it would not be regionally deployed in numbers or in some cases not deployable at all. Larger stealth payload would have made the aircraft larger but the point is that the F_16's and F-15's can't even get inside those environments barring the acceptance of huge losses halfway across the globe.

However as claimed above, the F-35 can carry a much larger payload externally. The first targets in an A2AD environment are A2AD enablers, and Command and Control systems..but if you need to take out thousands upon thousands of targets in an A2AD requirements then you have to bring in the big players as well and let the F-35 focus on SEAD/DEAD to enable larger payloads to come into the picture early. For international operators, if you need a platform that has to carry 4-6 bombs in a stealth platform, you better invest in something that is not a fighter..but most of these can't afford bombers.

He says extreme complexity is a formula for repeated failures, high cost and constant delays

But he fails to get into the reasons for the nature of the requirements. Threats dictate requirements and requirements dictate design parameters and choices. If he thinks a radar-less light weight fighter can go up against an A2AD environment then he is delusional. The fact that he still calls for a simple LWF in a time when the USAF needs larger and larger aircraft given the sort of needs arising in the future is more than ample evidence that he is nothing more than a troll who continues to live in his analysis conducted many decades ago, for a mission set that is not the primary needs assessment driver for the USAF or the USN...This is of course reflected in his virtual absence from the operational requirements discourse within strategic circles in the US. His only audience is those that Watch Russia Today and the occasional articles in Sputnik. Of course the anti-defense spending think tanks, and organizations continue to refer to his work and views but those are the fringe elements that will oppose almost anything..

In fact, the argument that the F-35 is too small has a lot of legs to it...and future fighters will be significantly larger than even the F-22 and F-15E. Thats just the requirement dictating design and most those that have influence don't have the luxury of designing requirement around a romantic idea of how a simple, small, light weight fighter that neither has the legs to get to the sort of theaters they are planning to operate in and doesn't have the sensors required to execute missions.

There are very few that are aware of the requirements, resources and political will to support the military within he USAF that continue to hold the belief that had it not been for the F-35, the USAF would have had a dedicated A-10 replacement, a dedicated F117 replacement and a dedicated F-16 replacement, the Navy a dedicated F-14 replacement, and a smaller F-18 replacement, the Marines a smaller AV-8 replacement and another aircraft borrowed from the USN's F-18 replacement. IN reality what would have happened would have been no AV8 replacement, F-16 replacing the A10 and older F-16's, possibly a UAV to replace the F117 and more Super Hornet's to replace the F/A-18 Classic hornets.

To the point that the F-35 is doing too many missions to make it effective :

It is doing exactly the same missions the F-16 or the Rafale for that matter. It is doing - CAS, SEAD, A2G, and A2A. If someone thinks that the F-16 doesn't do CAS..they are WRONG. They train for it a lot and they have been doing it in recent conflicts.

So, to get the most airpower to protect our ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, almost every attack aircraft in the US inventory — the F-15E, F-16, F-18, AH-64, AC-130, RPAs, B-52s and even the B-1B — become close air support assets. Their aircrews received extensive training in the challenging tactics, techniques and procedures demanded by the role of bombing or shooting the enemy as they closed with American troops.

Guess which platform the French use for CAS?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Mar 2016 07:43

Actually if one ignores the scathing criticism he makes of the F-35 and just listen to the "general military aviation" comments he makes it gets difficult to knock them down even if they are strawman arguments

He is basing his comments on his non-technical experience from the 50-70 era. What designers took months to do in those days (which he never did) it takes a few seconds or less to do now. So a change in a F-35 actually means recomputing a major aspect of the design. Recall that the early stealth planes had a gazillion facets, because they did not have means to recalculate every time a change was requested. As computers became more available the shape of a stealth object changed and actually became more stealthy. Computational science for you.

This is true for other areas, such as predictive analytics: predict the next Yahoo attack.

1. He says a fat body and small wings makes a plane useless at manoeuvring and quotes a high wing loading as a drawback
2. He says that for close air support there needs to be an ability to loiter and turn over small areas and a good gun
3. For long range interdiction the bomb load needs to be good
4. He says stealth precludes a heavy bomb load and stealth itself is overrated
5. He says extreme complexity is a formula for repeated failures, high cost and constant delays
6. He says that trying to make a single design suit every role for everyone never suit every one

Stealth is needed *only* for a relatively short portion very early in the battle. Once a certain point is reached the f-35 can discard its stealthness. It can carry a boat load and perhaps have F-22 or other -35 provide cover.

What about sensors? Even Indian designed assets claim far better performance because of better sensors. Imagine a better set of sensors, not one but perhaps 3-5.

Networks? So, your one craft benefits from a few top notch sensors, add a few other crafts. So you craft has access to some 20/30 sensors.

Complexity is mitigated by computational prowess. And here we are talking of mega complex code. You make a change in an internal asset you better see it reflect on the health check systems, auto healing, parts, support, etc. That is complex.

There is a lot more to talk about.

This guy, unfortunately, is living 50 years ago and projecting his fears to a gullible audience. The problem is the audience.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Mar 2016 08:49

The laws of aerodynamics have not changed since the 1970s, or even since the 1900s for that matter

What has changed is
1. Engine power
2. Materials science (light/strong); stealthy
3. Avionics - radar, targeting, aircraft and engine control

The only question is how much warfare will change. The US is trying to change the face of air warfare and this may well be successful, with every nation eventually following the US lead in how air wars are fought. But the US has not always succeeded in changing air warfare - so it needs to be seen how far the F-35 will go.

As I see it the F-22/F-35 combination is good for a US that also retains all sorts of other capabilities from B-52 up. Buy F-35 buyers who depend mainly on that type will be interesting to wacth

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Mar 2016 14:13

The laws of aerodynamics have not changed since the 1970s, or even since the 1900s for that matter

Of course they haven't but that wasn't being suggested.

As I see it the F-22/F-35 combination is good for a US that also retains all sorts of other capabilities from B-52 up. Buy F-35 buyers who depend mainly on that type will be interesting to wacth

The F-35 has benefited a lot from the F-22, but in many ways it is significantly more advanced than the raptor. However, there is practically no difference in the F-35 or the F-16 and rafale as far as combat mission is concerned. A potential operator (non US) looking at these three aircraft will be looking to do similar missions i.e air to air missions, strike, CAS etc..

Both the rafale and the F-35 come multiple added capabilities in the EW domain and while one could say the kinematic advantage rests with the rafale, the f-35 on the other hand has 5th generation stealth and much deeper avionics integration and interoperability through LPI data-links which the rafale lacks. In that sense it isn't different from the rafale, M2K, F-16 or even the F/A-18. Folks sometimes club the B version in but it is a different aircraft with differences in capabilities when it comes to range, payload etc.

The problems with Sprey's analysis are centered around his beliefs that :

- Combat requirements of the late 60's and early 70's are never ever going to change - It is this analysis that he keeps going back to since it suggested a simple, low_avionics_footprint light weight fighter (needs-assessment be damned).

- Avionics, radars, mission systems will never improve over decades in terms of capability, and efficiency - Again, he its tuck on the F-4 lessons learned in his claims that radars and other avionics systems would always be unreliable and therefore should not consume acquisition resources - In fact if the USAF stuck with the original LWF F-16 they would not have purchased more than 500 of them. Not until the F-16 became a true multi-role fighter did the requirements for the USAF change.

- CAS is one mission that requires just one type of aircraft irrespective of the scenarios and situations - This has been proven FALSE over and over again even in the last 2 conflicts which should actually favor the A-10 yet there were plenty of instances when it was not the most desired CAS platform. This multi-faceted CAS mission would be highlighted even more in a near peer conflict.

- Agility metrics that were important in the 70's, are still as important and more importantly in that order (Not true in an era of very high T2W ratio engines, HOBS missiles, and extremely capable long range BVR weaponry and emerging EW/cyber capability).

- The USAF's investment track has fundamentally changed. One quick look at the force structure during the LWF days (when the F16 was being designed) and one will see that the modern USAF is not the USAF of the 70's. For good or worst, more and more re sources are going to be consumed by Unmanned, Space, Cyber and the Bomber fleet and the USAF will never be going back to a diverse fighter fleet. Perhaps 2-4 fighter types at max.

There has been plenty of academic work on agility metrics and how they have transformed over generations. While criteria stay largely similar, emerging technology and other capability often influences which metrics are emphasized in combat aircraft design. I have posted individual studies before in the F-35 thread, but below is a pretty good lit review on the matter :

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... ility.html

I may have posted the individual papers referenced in this but if not they should be available to purchase on AIAA's website.

The only question is how much warfare will change. The US is trying to change the face of air warfare and this may well be successful, with every nation eventually following the US lead in how air wars are fought. But the US has not always succeeded in changing air warfare - so it needs to be seen how far the F-35 will go.

With the F-35 it was all about meeting the combat requirements currently handled by a bloated block 50 F-16 while staying closer too a size/weight/payload target that was actually affordable for a requirement that extended to the four digits (this is the main difference in the 'needs assessment of the F-35 vs the PAKFA). For the USN, the need was to replace the F/A-18 which traces its requirements back to the LWF but the Navy was actually seeking a range/payload performance similar to or better than the larger Super Hornet than the original Hornet (and thats what they are getting). The Marines, wanted a smaller aircraft (The original X32 (Lockheed) ) but since they could not afford their own project, agreed to size the aircraft to the USAF's requirements.

I don't think they were/are fundamentally changing the way air-warfare is executed but merely responding to the changes that have occurred since 40-50 or so years the last lot of fighters were designed. Incredible amount of money has been invested in propulsion, stealth, bringing avionics to the current level, blending efficient aerodynamics with stealth, advancement in MMI, the various generation of IR missiles that have been developed since then, and the incremental upgrade to the BVR capability.

What has also improved exponentially since the 70's has been the Situational Awareness both organic and the pipeline that is larger, more integrate, more resilient and that has redundancy built into it. Individually these capabilities existed elsewhere..Propulsion and stealth were brought in by the F-22. To some extent the F-22 also brought in integrated avionics (even though a half generation behind the F-35) and incorporated the advances in semiconductors and miniaturization of technology that occurred through dedicated investments in the previous decades.

Investment tracks have also changed with a new concept coming into play through unmanned aviation which has been an exponentially growing sector within the USAF, even as the USAF itself shrunk in size one the last decades. All these things warrant choices that absorbs the new realities and in a way, the F-35 reflects a shift in priorities when it comes to combat-effectiveness..Again, its not a LWF, nor could the modern USAF justify an LWF requirement for the 21st century given the sort of challenges it is likely to face. I think, as the requirements change and as the threat becomes heavily Pacific centric, the next generation of fighter designs would be far more revolutionary in terms of ' changing air-warfare, or the generally acceptable understanding of it' than the F-22 or the F-35 since when DEW's become mainstream the SWP&C requirements alone would bring unique challenges and trades to occur with some other traditional performance/design metrics in the table above.

Just for fun:

There are three conflicting opinions with regards to the F-16 vs F35 debate :

1) F-35 is too big, too complex to replace the F-16 (Sprey's argument)
2 ) Its the right sized aircraft given the fact that the F-16A is non-existent and the modern F-16 has CFT's, EFT's piled on to actually make it useful (USAF's argument)
3) The F-35 is too small for the pacific where they need more range and more payload (Argument used by those that look at changing requirements over a longer arc of time)

In my opinion its the right aircraft if one were to take a balanced view i.e. EUCOM centric, PACOM centric and CENTCOM centric. As PACOM priorities begin to influence requirements more and more given the economic realities and strategic implications of China becoming a competitor I think system requirements would bring about much more radical design trades and choices given the hard realities and sheer vastness of that theater of operation. The LRS-B may be the first one (perhaps even USAF/USN's maritime bomber) but what the F-35 transitions to in terms of variants and follow on would be much more radical than the F-16 to F-35 transition.

As far as the F-35's success is concerned I think it depends on what the expectations are. As mentioned above, I believe its capability and size/weight etc are sized fora XXXX fighter requirement and sustainability needs. Make it smaller, and less complex and you could more and that aircraft may work for EUCOM or even CENTCOM but not in the PACOM theater. Make it more capable, and it may work best at PACOM but you may not be able to buy as many to make a difference in EUCOM or CENTCOM, and you may not appeal to all the partner nations that you want the aircraft exported to for interoperability since in both he EUCOM and CENTCOM you rely heavily on alliances...It would depend upon the nature of conflicts and how fast the pacific changes..With China building up its military the USAF could well have under-estimated the rise of chinese capability in which case the 6th generation fighter would come in earlier at the expense of the F-35. Time will tell.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Mar 2016 15:24

The laws of aerodynamics have not changed since the 1970s, or even since the 1900s for that matter

What has changed is
1. Engine power
2. Materials science (light/strong); stealthy
3. Avionics - radar, targeting, aircraft and engine control

Of course the laws have not changed. But what has, and this was somewhat addressed in the vid provided by brar, is computational power and a wealth of knowledge. Both areas in which no one is going to catch the US in.

The vid talks specifically about vortexs generated by three parts of the F-35 features. Now anyone blindly copying the F-35 (read Madam China) will achieve a satisfactory results. But, any changes to that craft can never be modeled because they have no means of 're-computing nor the knowledge needed to verify if the suggested changes if the right path to take. The result is a half baked craft - as can seen in the two models that China has produced. Both meet the laws you speak of, but both are stuck in time, because China really has no means to 're-compute every time they modify the craft.

5th or any new gen is about re-computing within a give cost - time AND hitting the nail on the head every time. Or willing to pay a huge amount for not meeting certain params , as in F-22 (which was a huge learning curve, so was the early part of the F-35).

Think about it. F-117, with all its facets, and a F-35, smooth as a normal craft and yet the F-35 is stealthy!! Yes, there are other factors - paints, etc, but the bottom line is the basic shape.

Add to that other feature posted above: body lift (the vid talks about an Israeli F-15 coming back to its base with an entire wing lost - body lift for you), etc.

And what about FBW? Something that Sprey should be very, very familiar with. The F-16 would never fly without FBW. FBW enabled a brick to fly, without violating the laws.

The F-35 is a marvel, but it is not the ultimate. IMHO it is a mere step along the way.

And IMHO a nation needs to fail a huge amount of times AND needs computational power to use the laws in New ways. Otherwise one is only playing catch up or making very poor copies.

AMCA, I think, is a far better approach than the Chinese methods or the Russian one. But none are close to the American. I think India has better computational means , even if only for the AMCA, that neither Russia or China have built. ??????